KRUPASINDHU SAHU Vs. SREE SREE RAMACHANDRA DEVU GARU, RAJA OF KALLIKOTA AND ATTAGADA ESTATES, MINOR, BY THE COLLECTOR OF GANJAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a suit brought by the plaintiffs, who were carrying on business at Berhampore, against the late Rajah of Kallikotta to recover certain moneys due on an alleged settlement of accounts entered into in June 1906 together with subsequent advances. The case is defended by the Court of Wards on behalf of the minor Rajah, and in the written statement they plead that this settlement of account of June 1906 was entered into in circumstances which render it not binding on the Rajah and which they characterise as fraudulent. And in paragraph 13 they take exception to various items of charge which are included in the settlement of Exhibit E. The Subordinate Judge has written a very careful judgment, but so long and so involved that it was difficult for us to understand it until we had examined the whole of the evidence for ourselves and, therefore, was of much less assistance to the Court than it would otherwise have been.

(2.) Now there can be no doubt that he Court will not hold a party to a settlement which has been obtained from him under improper circumstances and that it will allow him to surcharge and falsify items which have been inserted erroneously and which are not really due, when what the parties contemplated was merely to ascertain what was actually due, as distinct from a case in which they agreed to accept a lump sum in settlement of their differences. These principles are well illustrated by two cases which have been cited before us, M Kellar v. Wallace 5 M.J.A. 372 : 8 Moo. P.C. 378 : 1 Equity Rep. 309 : 1 Bar. P.C.J. 453 : 18 E.E. 936 : 97 B.B. 62 : 14 K B. 144 and the well-known case of Williamson v. Barbour 9 Ch, D. 529 : 50 L.J. Ch. 147 : 37 L.T. 698. The Subordinate Judge has found that the settlement effected in this case in June 1906 between the plaintiffs and the Rajah is one which is not binding upon him and we agree with that decision.

(3.) The Rajah was a hopeless spendthrift who succeeded to the zemindari in 1899, and within four years had not only got through the ten lakhs balance handed to him on attaining majority, but had incurred fresh debts to the extent of twenty-two lakhs of rupees, and between that and the date of the present settlement had incurred further lia bilities of about eleven lakhs of rupees, which he was seeking at the time of the settlement to raise from the same English lenders who had advanced the money to meet the 22 lakhs I have already mentioned. At the time of the settlement his private affairs were largely in the hands of one Chamo Patuaik who was described as his personal assistant: and the evidence is that at this time the plaintiffs were beginning to press for payment to them and to threaten suits, and also that the Rajah was preparing a statement of his liabilities for the English lenders with a view to raising a further loan to meet his liabilities. It was quite proper in those circumstances that there should be a settlementprovided it was a fair one. The evidence is that three clerks of the plaintiffs, the 1st, 2nd and 3rd witnesses for the plaintiffs, and Chamo and another, the 1st and 2nd defence witnesses on behalf of the Rajah, met at the Rajah s house in Berhampore in his absence and the accounts were produced on both sides and this account, Exhibit E, was drawn up. The Rajah who had been spending some of his time on an island returned to his residence at Rambha on the 20th June 1906, and his diary records that his personal assistant arrived there at 6 o clock, and it is the case for the plaintiffs that the settlement was signed by the Rajah that same evening at 8 o clock. The diary mentions that the Rajah was at that time suffering from a headache but says nothing about the settlement. Much reliance is placed by the plaintiffs on their evidence that the Rajah himself scrutinized the accounts before signing. But we attach very little importance to it, having regard to the character of the man and the disorder into which he had allowed his affairs to fall, We think that there is very little doubt that such scrutiny was merely a formal one; and that is borne out by an examination of the character of the settlement which he was induced to enter into.